Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

First Evidence Of Under-Ice Volcanoes In Antarctica

Posted by Zonk on from the a-touch-extreme dept.

An anonymous reader writes "The first evidence of a volcanic eruption from beneath Antarctica's ice sheet has been discovered by members of the British Antarctic Survey. The volcano on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet began erupting some 2,000 years ago and remains active to this day. Using airborne ice-sounding radar, scientists discovered a layer of ash produced by a 'subglacial' volcano. It extends across an area larger than Wales."

186 comments

  1. And here by AndGodSed · · Score: 5, Funny

    everyone was blaming global warming for the melting of the icecaps...

    --

    Seven Days with Ubuntu Unity

    1. Re:And here by BlueParrot · · Score: 0, Redundant

      everyone was blaming global warming for the melting of the icecaps...

      And we still are, these volcano's would be heating the ice from bellow, the icecaps are melting at the surface, forming water pools in the ice.
    2. Re:And here by TapeCutter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "everyone was blaming global warming for the melting of the icecaps..."

      ...when really it was...what? - An Antartic volcano melting the Artic sea ice?

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    3. Re:And here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      "For every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction"

      God you science people don't even apply your own science.

    4. Re: And here by robert899 · · Score: 1

      My God Betty, you're right!

    5. Re:And here by ardle · · Score: 1

      You missed the point: "There's no point in trying, something always gets you in the end" ;-)
      Do I really have to spell it out for you?

    6. Re:And here by annette143 · · Score: 1

      a couple of years ago they discovered one up by Alaska. It is 900 feet under the sea. I saw it on CBS's site. yeah, that'll heat the pond..

  2. Larger than a whale? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Then that really is a mighty volcano! What next, a volcano with an area larger than 100 elephants?

    1. Re:Larger than a whale? by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      Aren't a lot of what lay people call a "volcano" typically larger then whales?

    2. Re:Larger than a whale? by Xest · · Score: 1

      Yes, but not as often larger than wales.

    3. Re:Larger than a whale? by 0a100b · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm not familiar with the Imperial system. Can somebody tell me how many Kazakhstans this volcano measures?

    4. Re:Larger than a whale? by jamesh · · Score: 1

      What next, a volcano with an area larger than 100 elephants?

      That would be a pretty big volcano - remember, elephants are larger than the moon!
      (yes, I know it's a hoax, but it's still pretty funny)
    5. Re:Larger than a whale? by zombie_striptease · · Score: 1

      Not larger than a whale, larger than whales. All of them.

    6. Re:Larger than a whale? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm pretty sure there are 15 Millihelens per Kazakhstan. Also, 2 Whales per Rosie O'Donnell.

      Remember, when working with imperial units, it's important to keep this distinction in mind: a keg of beer is half a barrel, but not just any barrel.

    7. Re:Larger than a whale? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ignoramus! That's "Wales", not "whales", the British Standard news-media unit of area that is quite a lot more than a "football pitch" and somewhere between "Greater London" and "Australia".

    8. Re:Larger than a whale? by stereoroid · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh, like we didn't see that one coming... still, it's got some way to go before it's as big as Wales' head - Prince Charles of Wales, that is.

      --
      (this is not a .sig)
    9. Re:Larger than a whale? by dokhebi · · Score: 1

      Yes. It's called Yellowstone National Park.

      Just my $0.02 worth.

    10. Re:Larger than a whale? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      2 whales equals Rosie O'Donnell? I just imagined it would be more for some reason.

    11. Re:Larger than a whale? by acefoxx · · Score: 1

      wales not Whales like the country you know near britain not the animal but eather way is that the measure of the volcano or the magma chamber underneath it?

  3. Volcanos elsewhere... by psychicsword · · Score: 5, Funny

    There are thousands of volcanoes elsewhere on the globe I don't see why antarctic would be any different. I understand before we never had any proof and that is why it is news but I wouldn't say it is Earth shaking news.

    1. Re:Volcanos elsewhere... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it does not run Linux!

    2. Re:Volcanos elsewhere... by CaptainPatent · · Score: 1, Redundant

      I wouldn't say it is Earth shaking news. On the contrary, volcanoes are among the leading cause of earthquakes so I would contend this is precisely "earth shaking news"
      --
      Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
    3. Re:Volcanos elsewhere... by psychicsword · · Score: 1

      The pun was intended

    4. Re:Volcanos elsewhere... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, what's that? It smells like burning pants!

    5. Re:Volcanos elsewhere... by sqldr · · Score: 1, Funny

      I thought the primary cause of earth tremors was hoards of stampeding apple fans heading down to the apple shop to see the latest ipod/iphone/macbook.

      --
      I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
    6. Re:Volcanos elsewhere... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This sounds like a job for emergency pants!

    7. Re:Volcanos elsewhere... by alejolp · · Score: 1

      I understand before we never had any proof

      I remind you that Captain Nemo found all the necessary proof:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:20000_Nemo_North_Pole_flag.jpg

    8. Re:Volcanos elsewhere... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well it's a good thing he posted then because I had no clue you were even attempting a joke.

    9. Re:Volcanos elsewhere... by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      I thought the primary cause of earth tremors was hoards of stampeding apple fans heading down to the apple shop to see the latest ipod/iphone/macbook. What do you mean, "stampeding", we stand in line.
      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    10. Re:Volcanos elsewhere... by j33px0r · · Score: 1

      but I wouldn't say it is Earth shaking news.

      no...that would be an earthquake.
  4. How long? by neokushan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How long before people start claiming these as being the source of the melting ice caps?

    --
    +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
    1. Re:How long? by jaxtherat · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, Monday January 21, @08:20PM according to the first post...

      --
      http://www.zombieapocalypse.tv/
    2. Re:How long? by Charcharodon · · Score: 0, Redundant
      ....hum let's see...the one area of ice caps that is showing massive amounts of melting, is sort right over the volcano......

      ...volcano under the ice...ice is melting...

      ...President Bush's fault!

    3. Re:How long? by ultranova · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      ....hum let's see...the one area of ice caps that is showing massive amounts of melting, is sort right over the volcano......

      And has been for 2000 years, according to the summary. Why would it only begin melting in modern times, if the volcano is the cause ?

      ...President Bush's fault!

      Nah, but spreading lies - about climate change, about Iraq, and who knows what else - for personal gain sure is.

      It's January and there isn't any snow on the ground; in fact it's raining water. It's been like this year after year lately. A decade ago it would be midwinter by now, with the temperature of -20 degree Celcius and snow covering everything in a beautiful white sheet. Instead we have endless rain and mud, year after year after year. And the monkey you call president has the gall to argue the change isn't real.

      And Americans wonder why they are hated.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    4. Re:How long? by Charcharodon · · Score: 3, Insightful
      And has been for 2000 years, according to the summary. Why would it only begin melting in modern times, if the volcano is the cause ?

      Yeah with all that data we have colected by scientists during the days of the Roman Empire makes it easy to see those long term ice melting trends.....

      ....oh wait that's right you are a git and you are talking out your arse.

      Now for proper insults and arguments when you saying raining all the time, you haven't identified where you from. I'm assuming Europe. I've only spent a real amount of time in England, Norway, and Cyprus so my knowledge of weather is limited to those places.

      England does nothing but piss rain and rarely ever gets cold enough for snow, so you can hardly blame that on the US.

      Norwary rarely get's warm enough for anything but snow (I've only been there during the winter, froze my ass off.) so you can't be from there.

      Cyprus was nice and warm, and if that is what the world is going to be like after global warming then let's go for a drive in my SUV to go buy stuff that has alot of plastic packaging.

      The more I travel the more I realize that people are full of it, and can hardly lay all the worlds problems at the US's feet. I haven't seen anything in Europe that impresses me of your Green life style.

      You don't have any better driving habits than in the US. The only reasons you drive less (as in distance not in frequency, is your sky high taxes, shitty roads, and that you are willing to live shoulder to shoulder in town with barely any parking, is the only reason you guys drive small cars.

      Mild winters and summers also let's you off the hook for cooling and heating bills and the fact that you guys are willing to again be gouged by the utility companys. I can see why you use less. I'm still paying twice as much here in the UK (without AC) than I did while living in the California desert(with AC) which supposedly is supposed to be in the middle of a power crisis and having raised rates drastically in the last few years.

      Now the only point I'll conceed to you is the war in Iraq is pretty much a waste of time. The money would have been better spent buying everyone Priuses and solar panels for their homes and a nice candygram telling the Middle East to go fuck their mothers.

      Of course if we want to look at who has really caused all the problems in the Middle East and just about every other corner of the world all we have to do is take a look European history book. 400 years of European global policies and Empire building has made a real mess of things. The US has hardly had enough time to be blamed for much of it, but man does everyone scream bloody murder when we try to clean it up.

    5. Re:How long? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      which supposedly is supposed to be in the middle of a power crisis

      The only crisis you're in is the Enron Business Model crisis, whereby you turn off your power plants for no reason except to convince everyone there's a crisis in order to extort more money from the end users.

    6. Re:How long? by Charcharodon · · Score: 1
      Yes I agree completely with that statement. The power companies, more like the power brokers have been playing a game for years in the US to keep prices up.

      The truly sad thing is even with all the criminal behavior by the companies the prices are still a alot less in the States than I've found in the various places in Europe I've lived. In the States they have to be sneaky to rip us off, in Europe it's written right into the government regulations to rip people off.

      I'm looking forward to heading back to the US when my time is up and putting solar and wind up at the house and start getting a check in the mail from the power company instead of a bill.

      P

    7. Re:How long? by dasunt · · Score: 1

      And has been for 2000 years, according to the summary.

      And it erupted in 325BC, according to the article.

      I dunno about global warming, but I suspect that time traveling volcanoes will be a bigger problem. :p

      (Oh, and kudos to the editor or writer who (presumably) dropped the "more than" before "2000 years". Without your sloppy skills, the previous joke would not be possible.)

    8. Re:How long? by bogjobber · · Score: 1
      It's January and there isn't any snow on the ground; in fact it's raining water. It's been like this year after year lately. A decade ago it would be midwinter by now, with the temperature of -20 degree Celcius and snow covering everything in a beautiful white sheet. Instead we have endless rain and mud, year after year after year. And the monkey you call president has the gall to argue the change isn't real.

      And where I live the last couple years have been some of the coldest in memory and we are at 150% of normal snowpack. That doesn't mean global climate change isn't happening, and it doesn't mean climate change is happening just because your local weather is warmer.

      Don't use anecdotes, even if it follows the same pattern as the real data.

    9. Re:How long? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I'm looking forward to heading back to the US when my time is up"
      What? You're still here?

    10. Re:How long? by ardle · · Score: 1

      Getting outta jail next month :-)

    11. Re:How long? by usmdesigner · · Score: 1

      It's January and there isn't any snow on the ground Umm... it just snowed in "mississippi" over the weekend in hattiesburg. Snow is extremely rare for this region of the state. Years go by without snow falling.
    12. Re:How long? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Yea, it has been something like 70 or 85 years since the last snow. I don't know about hattiesburg specifically, but I have a friend who moved to Birmingham and said he was doing so to get away from the cold and snow (really he was unemployed, broke and needed a fresh start with some family there that could help him.) But he called me complaining that the first year he is there it snows and I think it had been something like 70 or 85 years ago since the last time it supposedly snowed there.

      Anyways, this point reminds me of the 100 year floods. Three quarters of a century is close enough to that that it might be something similar. I started paying attention to this because the on line weather site I visit has the record highs for most of the days of this year in my area nested in the 30's with a few in 50's and 90's. And surprise, that seems to be about the time frame it took to get snow that far south again. I'm wondering if there isn't some pattern to this madness and somehow we are too self absorbed to notice it.

    13. Re:How long? by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      Because of course volcano activity is perfectly consistent and NEVER varies across decades or centuries.

    14. Re:How long? by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      It's January and there isn't any snow on the ground; in fact it's raining water.

      In Atlanta, we usually go the winter without having any snow, or at most a few flurries. This year, however, we've had two significant snow storms within the past week (where "significant" means it actually snowed for several hours at a time, and accumulated on things other than paved ground). Except for the "blizzard" (a.k.a. 2 inches of accumulation) of '93, it's the most snow I've ever seen in my life.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    15. Re:How long? by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      The only reasons you drive less (as in distance not in frequency, is your sky high taxes, shitty roads, and that you are willing to live shoulder to shoulder in town with barely any parking, is the only reason you guys drive small cars.

      That's not true. The most significant reason why Europeans drive less is exactly the same as the reason people in New York drive less: the cities were built before zoning and cars. Here in America, we're usually not allowed to "live shoulder to shoulder in town" because governments have created dendritic street patterns (or extremely large blocks) with homogeneous zones so that there are no jobs or stores within walking distance and we're forced to rely on cars.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    16. Re:How long? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah with all that data we have colected by scientists during the days of the Roman Empire makes it easy to see those long term ice melting trends.....

      While I agree with everything else you said, I have to take issue with this one. You probably don't know, but the ice in Antarctica has layers in it. Just like the layers found in sedimentary rock. Using these layers all sorts of things can be discovered about the long term ice melting trends. The work is mostly preliminary, since much of Antarctica is still unmapped. I don't think there's any results that are exciting to a lay audience. There are results showing when certain events happened (ice streams stopping, changes in accumulation rates, volcanoes going off, etc) which happened before anyone was there to record them. The oldest ice in Antarctica is over 10K years old and provides all sorts of clues to what was happening during prehistoric times.

      Ice cores also show all sort of history. The levels of lead in Antarctic ice accumulated during the Roman Empire are much greater than any other time before the industrial revolution. Just like there are no astronomers in space, you don't need to be from history to study it.

    17. Re:How long? by Charcharodon · · Score: 1

      :) You have a very valid point, the local village down the road has a tree in town that is something like 200 years older that the US. The Church in town is two hundred years older than the tree.

  5. Oh well, screw global warming by Xiph · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If volcanic activity is truly sending the glaciers into the ocean, local warming can have a real and serious effect on global climate.
    It's funny, Here in Denmark, we here alot about the potential consequences of global warming, about the millions of refugees it will create.
    Noone ever mentions that we'll probably be some of those refugees, Our tallest hill, has a height below 170,9 metres, or 560,6 feet above sealevel.

    Time for me to buy that land in south america.

    --
    Blah blah sig blah blah blah irony blah blah
    1. Re:Oh well, screw global warming by RuBLed · · Score: 1

      or build an ark.. out of gopher wood...

    2. Re:Oh well, screw global warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Can you survive a 1 m rise? Yes? Then you are good to go. Al Gore was full of shit when he mentioned 6 or 7 m.

      This doesn't mean that life isn't going to suck in Denmark. But at least you won't be completely swamped. When people talk about refugees they primarily mean due to desertification. The increased desertification won't extend that far north, but it is going to make life at equatorial latitudes suck even more than it does now. Heh, we might finally actually have the torrid clime. Wouldn't the Greeks and Romans be surprised that it was humans that created it.

    3. Re:Oh well, screw global warming by Chrisq · · Score: 3, Informative

      Even a 1M rise is not good news for Denmark see map, or many places in the USA like New orleans or even Sacramento.

    4. Re:Oh well, screw global warming by PHPfanboy · · Score: 1

      Yo, we'll look after your women if you need!
      We loves those Danish girls, oh yeah.

      --
      29 mpg. YMMV.
    5. Re:Oh well, screw global warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are only some oil digging mountain monkeys (fjallaper), but we do have a lot of mountainous areas to share with out strange sounding neighbors. But please try to speak in a way that makes it possible to understand you without being drunk!

      "Test: Er du en fjellape?" - http://www.dinside.no/php/art.php?id=23174

      But to be serious: The weather changes is serious. Norway have a long coastline with rough weather conditions. We might get serious problems, but we might deserve it. Might be time to find a quite area in the mountains and rethink the oil strategy. You are welcome to join.

    6. Re:Oh well, screw global warming by DougWebb · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't worry too much; another poster posted a quote that the sea level is rising 0.2mm/year. At that rate, your tallest hill has 850 thousand years before it'll go under.

      Two scenarios are more likely: one is that Denmark will become more temperate, with less brutal winters. The other is that the Gulf Stream will be interrupted, there won't be any more warn water sent up into the northern Atlantic, and Denmark will become the southern end of a new glacier/ice cap.

      Either way, you'll keep your head above water.

    7. Re:Oh well, screw global warming by jackpot777 · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't worry too much; another poster posted a quote that the sea level is rising 0.2mm/year.


      Nope, TFA said this was CONTRIBUTING a fifth of a centimetre to the rise in sea levels.

      If I give five quid / Euros / dollars to a charity, that doesn't mean the charity has ONLY received five whatevers.

      Do you all see?

      For a technical-based forum, we certainly have a lot of people moving their fingers in tune to their beliefs before engaging brain first.
      --
      Shiny. Let's be bad guys...
    8. Re:Oh well, screw global warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't put too much trust in that thing. I actually happen to live in the area you linked to there, and I can tell you that while a good part of the crosshatched area is indeed below sea level (or, at the very least, below sea level+1m when there's a flood), we do have dykes to take care of that. And I'm not talking about lesbians.

      Of course, dykes still would have to be fortified, enlarged and so on, but there wouldn't be an automatic flooding the way the map suggests.

    9. Re:Oh well, screw global warming by LOADLETTER · · Score: 0

      Great, that's the most positive thing about this whole thing - less hypocrites

    10. Re:Oh well, screw global warming by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Given where sea levels have been historically, I'd consider Denmark (as many other places) no more a 'permanent place to live' as the beach at low tide.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Phanerozoic_Sea_Level.png

      (shrug)

      --
      -Styopa
  6. And the debate continues by AndGodSed · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Okay, probably not a good thing to post so frequently BUT...

    From TFA:

    Co-author Professor David Vaughan (BAS) says,"This eruption occurred close to Pine Island Glacier on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. The flow of this glacier towards the coast has speeded up in recent decades and it may be possible that heat from the volcano has caused some of that acceleration. However, it cannot explain the more widespread thinning of West Antarctic glaciers that together are contributing nearly 0.2mm per year to sea-level rise. This wider change most probably has its origin in warming ocean waters."

    What warms the oceans? Global warming is a big buzzword today, and not without merit. I just find it interesting that there may be more possibilities out there than just "OMG we are killing the urf!"

    Nature has a role to play in this too, humans weren't around during the ice-age, if we were we would have been blamed for Global Cooling I bet...

    --

    Seven Days with Ubuntu Unity

    1. Re:And the debate continues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You RTFA, you must be new here, please do not do it again ...

    2. Re:And the debate continues by AndGodSed · · Score: 1

      But if I don't rtfa everybody calls me proby and I have to clean out the trash!

      --

      Seven Days with Ubuntu Unity

    3. Re:And the debate continues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >humans weren't around during the ice-age, if we were we would have been blamed for Global Cooling I bet...

      Um, yes we were. The last Ice Age ended around 10,000 years ago, while modern humans have been on the planet at least 100,000 years (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens#Rise_of_civilization/.

    4. Re:And the debate continues by jackpot777 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I just find it interesting that there may be more possibilities out there than just "OMG we are killing the urf!"


      Time to dispel a big myth, then.

      The present concern with climate change ISN'T that it's happening (even though American commentator Rush Limbaugh wrote a book that says "Despite the hysterics of a few pseudo-scientists, there is no reason to believe in global warming", fogging the debate). It's happening. It's measured. It's science, bitches, deal with it.

      The present concern is that it's happening faster than ever recorded in history.

      Someone has already tried to fog the issue by stating that the Romans weren't taking meteorological measurements ...but they were, anecdotally. Diaries that stated when crops grew and what kinds of plants grew in their Empire. And the Romans weren't the only ones. The Ancient Greeks did it, the Chinese did it. Using this informaton, with a little common sense (a fir tree will thrive where an orange tree won't, for example), we know what the state of a part of the Earth was like, on a particular day.

      Then there are ice cores. We have the technology to drill down into metres of ice and recover long cylinders of ice. Trapped in that ice are millions of air bubbles, showing us the make-up of the atmosphere and sometimes trapping plant spores, back before anyone was measuring these things. Tiny little time-capsules of proof. And all we have to do is study them.

      Either that, or we can base our world-view on the writings of goat-herders in the desert. Personally, I'll put my money on people that know (for example) that the female body contains microscopic eggs over people writing poems on papyrus that thought the womb was just a fertile ground for a man's seed. But that's just me, call me rational if you like.
      --
      Shiny. Let's be bad guys...
    5. Re:And the debate continues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Can someone please write down for me the thermodynamics equations by which the atmosphere would warm the ocean? The greenhouse effect is said to warm the atmosphere through re-radiation and absorption by gas molecules. For the oceans to be warming due to the green house effcet, the atmosphere would need to warm the ocean. Given the huge difference in mass between the atmosphere and the ocean, how big would delta t need to be to cause the ocean to warm by 1 kelvin over 100 years? Do the math, you'll find it instructive.

    6. Re:And the debate continues by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      Given that the drilling process heats the ice cores as well as introducing fluid and forcing them through other chemical and physical changes it immediately makes any atmospheric measurements taken from them null and void. http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm

    7. Re:And the debate continues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yikes. You must think people studying ice cores are really stupid. It's not hard to avoid and detect drilling fluid problems. The don't the outside of the ice core for this reason. The ice certainly isn't heated enough to melt it. I know people who work with Antarctic ice, so I've seen it. The trapped air is under extreme pressure. It would be extremely hard for anything to get in. If you put a cube of this ice in water it crackles and snaps as the gas escapes. It's called "party ice" and I've heard it's sold in Japan. Jaworowski is a nut job who ignores facts to maintain his own personal reality. He's much loved by the media and such, because everyone wants to have two side and a mock debate, but don't mistake it for science. It's theater.

  7. Wales are not fish! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    My little sister is so stupid she thinks Wales are fish. Duh, Wales are mammals.

    1. Re:Wales are not fish! by Sciryl+Llort · · Score: 0

      Are too, I heard it at a rugby match:

      Wales, Wales!
      Bloody great fishes are Wales.
      They swim in the sea,
      Till you eat them for tea,
      O bloody great fishes are Wales.

    2. Re:Wales are not fish! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's spelled mamel, dummy.

    3. Re:Wales are not fish! by Sockatume · · Score: 4, Funny

      Actually, whales are mammals. Wales is a rugged, Klingon-speaking country in the United Kingdom.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    4. Re:Wales are not fish! by scoot80 · · Score: 1

      mammal dum dum

    5. Re:Wales are not fish! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you mean United Klingdom?

    6. Re:Wales are not fish! by aproposofwhat · · Score: 1
      Twll dy din.

      Not Klingon, but Welsh.

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    7. Re:Wales are not fish! by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Eh, same diff!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    8. Re:Wales are not fish! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah,
      Klingon uses more vowels.

      ABIL

  8. "Alien" life? by Chrisq · · Score: 3, Insightful

    One of the possibilities that this opens is that there is life that has been evolving separately from the rest of terrestrial life for millions of years. In theory life could live off the volcanic chemicals just as it does at undersea vents. This could be the really interesting part of the discovery.

    1. Re:"Alien" life? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The idea that life forms that evolved separately from the majority of life on earth might exist in extreme environments has been around for some time now, and a great deal of research has been going on in Antarctica, especially right now during the latest International Polar Year. There has also been talk about the Russians finally drilling into Lake Vostok this year to see if there is life there. According to a lecturer at McMurdo this past October, microbial life has even been confirmed living in the ice itself - or, rather, perhaps in microscopic cracks in the ice. Some of these one-celled organisms apparently take as long as 20 years to undergo cell division - as opposed to 20 minutes for normal cells in warmer climates.

      Altogether, lots of neat stuff happening this year on the ice.

    2. Re:"Alien" life? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      The idea that life forms that evolved separately from the majority of life on earth might exist in extreme environments has been around for some time now
      You mean like these? In which case I for one welcome our new, fivefold symmetric, barrel shaped overlords.
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:"Alien" life? by ananix · · Score: 1

      Not really, i dont think the glaciers have been there for millions of years?

    4. Re:"Alien" life? by glitch23 · · Score: 0

      One of the possibilities that this opens is that there is life that has been evolving separately from the rest of terrestrial life for millions of years. In theory life could live off the volcanic chemicals just as it does at undersea vents. This could be the really interesting part of the discovery.

      Wow, good thing I brought my boots to work today. I'm going to need them for more than just snow I guess.

      --
      this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
    5. Re:"Alien" life? by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      Well, unless you are a creationist see Mystery of Antarctica's 15-Million Year-Old Lake.

  9. Wales by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wales is that lump of land attached to the the left hand side of England - not the bottom pointy one, the lump above it and no not that island floating in the sea, that's Ireland.

    They're not talking about the large underwater animal spelt "whale".

  10. Wales, schmails by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why's Wales always used as a random country for the purposes of size comparison? I sense a thesis coming on.

    1. Re:Wales, schmails by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why's Wales always used as a random country for the purposes of size comparison?

      Because it confuses the hell out of Americans, who refer to the whole island as "England".

    2. Re:Wales, schmails by El+Yanqui · · Score: 1

      Because it confuses the hell out of Americans, who refer to the whole island as "England".

      Is "England" that bit to the right of Isle of Man?

      --
      Well, thanks to the Internet, I'm now bored with sex.
    3. Re:Wales, schmails by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it confuses the hell out of Americans, who refer to the whole island as "Ingerlund".

      There, fixed that for you.

    4. Re:Wales, schmails by Daimanta · · Score: 1

      Exactly. And it is approximately 6000 Monacos big.

      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
    5. Re:Wales, schmails by eeek77 · · Score: 1

      Whatever. Just as long as we don't have to pay taxes to all y'all.

  11. You missed a part of TA. by VON-MAN · · Score: 3, Informative

    it (the eruption) cannot explain the more widespread thinning of West Antarctic glaciers that together are contributing nearly 0.2mm per year to sea-level rise. This wider change most probably has its origin in warming ocean waters.
    1. Re:You missed a part of TA. by timmarhy · · Score: 1, Insightful

      i seriously have to call bullshit on someone claiming they can measure an ocean to 0.2mm

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    2. Re:You missed a part of TA. by rucs_hack · · Score: 4, Insightful

      i seriously have to call bullshit on someone claiming they can measure an ocean to 0.2mm

      Yarr, it be an average, I'm sure you've heard of them. Oh yes, and 0.2mm is a pretty big number, rather easy to measure.

    3. Re:You missed a part of TA. by VON-MAN · · Score: 1

      Seriously, 0.2mm isn't really difficult to measure with 21th century technology. And (even as the article doesn't explicitly say this) i'm sure it's an average.

    4. Re:You missed a part of TA. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [quote] Yarr, it be an average, I'm sure you've heard of them. Oh yes, and 0.2mm is a pretty big number, rather easy to measure. [/quote]

      Yeah huge number, considering the surface tension of water itself is in the range
      of .1 to .2 mm.

    5. Re:You missed a part of TA. by pnewhook · · Score: 2, Funny

      Extolling the virtues of 21th century technology has got to be up there as one of the most retarded things ever said on Slashdot.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    6. Re:You missed a part of TA. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe the GP justh typth with a lithp.

    7. Re:You missed a part of TA. by peragrin · · Score: 1

      especially since most of the record data was with 19th, and 20th century technology.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    8. Re:You missed a part of TA. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      i seriously have to call bullshit on someone claiming they can measure an ocean to 0.2mm
      I agree, how can you accurately measure the level of something that keeps moving up and down?
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    9. Re:You missed a part of TA. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It should be noted the the satellites we lauched in the 1980's to measure "Rising" Sea level, were actually "mis-calibrated" by as much as 2cm, leading to further incorrect downstream measurements.

    10. Re:You missed a part of TA. by EonBlueApocalypse · · Score: 1

      If your getting consistent measurements around 0.2 mm for say 14 years and end up having about a 2.8 mm difference compared to 14 years ago or even 1.4 mm 7 years ago, along with consistent measurements from others in different areas of the world... Why are there doubts about our ability to measure some fairly large numbers associated with the oceans? We have physicists, biologist, chemists, and the long list of professions associated with nanotechnology working in incredibly small measurements. Seriously there are people working in nanometers that happen to be one billionth of a meter in size (1/1,000,000,000 m) yet suddenly it must be impossible for us to measure millimeters (1/1,000 m)?

    11. Re:You missed a part of TA. by acedotcom · · Score: 0

      wow...i think it was a joke

      --
      they say it is often more relevant then the comment above, all we know is its called the Sig!
    12. Re:You missed a part of TA. by VON-MAN · · Score: 1

      Oh, you're speaking of the th. That a "typo" on my side, English is not my native language. But you're welcome to gloat.

    13. Re:You missed a part of TA. by Foolicious · · Score: 1

      Oh, you're speaking of the th. That a "typo" on my side, English is not my native language. But you're welcome to gloat.

      Oh, ok - it's not your native language. Well then, you needn't use it correctly, right? Nobody cares that English is not your native language, and it should not and did not matter until you injected into the conversation. I make typos all the time and English is my native language. Am I an idiot? No. Well, maybe, but it's not because I make a few typos here and there.

      The reason you made the typo probably had little to do with your English (because it looked fine otherwise), and more to do with a number of other factors such as being hurried, etc. Getting teased is part of life; it's best just to grin and bear it.

      --
      Please don't use "umm" or "err" or "erm".
    14. Re:You missed a part of TA. by Xaositecte · · Score: 1

      Stop that, you're embaressing us in front of the foreigners.

    15. Re:You missed a part of TA. by Bob-taro · · Score: 1

      Yarr, it be an average, I'm sure you've heard of them. Oh yes, and 0.2mm is a pretty big number, rather easy to measure.

      I think it's a valid question how they came up with that number. I suspect they estimated the volume of melted ice per year and divided that by the surface area of the oceans.

      --
      Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
    16. Re:You missed a part of TA. by VON-MAN · · Score: 1

      Seriously, that was a bit pompous wasn't it?

    17. Re:You missed a part of TA. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please cite a primary source for your belief that the oceans are rising.

    18. Re:You missed a part of TA. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's easier for humans to measure small things on small scales than it is to measure small things on big scales. It's just harder to "see" everything.

      To quote some profound slashdotter:

      "Perhaps the biggest roadblock is the general inability of humanity to navigate a complex system beyond an arbitrarily negotiated collection of local, mostly unrelated optima."

    19. Re:You missed a part of TA. by dustmite · · Score: 1

      Yeah, all those thousands of scientists are always making things up that would be insanely easy to refute yet magically nobody in the scientific community is able to --- fortunately we have more knowledgable people like rucs_hack on slashdot to "call bullshit" on them, as the entire rest of the world hadn't noticed this obvious thing. Why don't you actually go *learn* how they measure those things? Just because you personally DON'T KNOW how, doesn't meant the methods don't exist.

    20. Re:You missed a part of TA. by Kreigaffe · · Score: 1

      Not at all. I clearly saw an invitation to gloat.

      --
      ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
    21. Re:You missed a part of TA. by lessthan · · Score: 1

      Maybe because it moves up and down at predictable intervals?

      --
      Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
    22. Re:You missed a part of TA. by Teun · · Score: 1

      It's not measured but calculated from the amount of ice that melts and ends up in the oceans.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    23. Re:You missed a part of TA. by jammo · · Score: 1

      I guess it's a bit like measuring the thickness of a piece of paper, you take a hundred+ sheets and measure that. The timescale seems more important. What is the accuracy in measurements over time? Is it consistently growing, increasingly growing, levelling at a new equilibrium, due to receed?? Scary, but we don't have accurate global records from that big a timescale. It is pretty much possible to estimate the total mass of ice now with coring/ penetrating radar, but what of the effect of an active volcano being exposed to the sea from under the ice? It is believed that this is what caused the most massive volcanic eruption in recorded history (13k nukes worth!), destroying the island of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krakatoa in 1883. Ironically, such an eruption would darken the skies (in that hemisphere at least)for years, reducing global mean temperatures rapidly..

    24. Re:You missed a part of TA. by jammo · · Score: 1

      Edit: that is not what caused Krakatoa to blow, not the ice, but the sudden influx of seawater is what I meant.

    25. Re:You missed a part of TA. by Shihar · · Score: 2, Informative

      You should be skeptical when someone says they can say the ocean has risen 0.2mm. If that is the only number they have given, they are liars, stupid, or both. The world's oceans might very well have risen that much, and it might very well be something you can measure. That said, I can promise that there is an uncertainty in that measurement. Someone who fails to report their level of uncertainty is either incompetent or taking you for a ride. This is why I suggest taking newspaper science with a grain of sea salt. 0.2mm with a 95% confidence of +/- 0.01m is a whole hell of a lot different from 0.2mm with a 95% confidence of +/-0.2mm.

    26. Re:You missed a part of TA. by tjstork · · Score: 1

      Yarr, it be an average, I'm sure you've heard of them. Oh yes, and 0.2mm is a pretty big number, rather easy to measure

      Um, where's the ocean going to be smooth enough to measure .2mm? The best I think you'd be able to get would be some sort of a weighted average, but an exact .2mm measurement? Come on. It strains the credibility. For all we know, a few fish swimming underneath the ocean would displace the surface that much. It's just an absurd figure.

      --
      This is my sig.
    27. Re:You missed a part of TA. by rujholla · · Score: 1

      LOL

      Go reread the posts -- rucs_hack was not calling BS on the scientific community!

    28. Re:You missed a part of TA. by gr8scot · · Score: 1

      It's easier for humans to measure small things on small scales than it is to measure small things on big scales. It's just harder to "see" everything. That's why the published data, like 0.2mm per year, are based on many measurements at different locations over long periods of time -- small things on small scales, repeated many times.
      --
      All 19 hijackers were known terrorists 09-10-2001. Lack of FBI intelligence does not justify warrantless wiretaps..
    29. Re:You missed a part of TA. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like your mom does?

  12. Area conversion... by Bazman · · Score: 4, Funny

    For those on the other side of the pond, the area of Wales is about that of New Jersey.

    Actually, given that they've located an area of possibly steaming ash and dust, maybe they just found New Jersey by accident.

    1. Re:Area conversion... by aussie_a · · Score: 0, Troll

      I know Americans are bad at geography, but Antarctica isn't anywhere near New Jersey. FYI.

    2. Re:Area conversion... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As volcanoes go, this rather large. I am reminded of the bit in Blue Mars where the west Antarctic ice sheet slides off the continent in a few days and global sea levels rise by six metres.

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
    3. Re:Area conversion... by ArwynH · · Score: 1

      How large is than in Libraries of Congress?

    4. Re:Area conversion... by moosesocks · · Score: 2, Funny

      Do you mean to say that this volcano is spewing sheep?

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    5. Re:Area conversion... by Bazman · · Score: 1

      Heh. I'm sorry you got modded troll, this was about the only reply to my message that made me laugh!

      Actually, the size of Wales is interesting - you can get souvenirs from tacky Welsh souvenir shops that proudly claim 'If Wales was flattened out it would be bigger than England!'. Because of the mountains, you see. I doubt it's true unless you go into fractal dimensions....

    6. Re:Area conversion... by andphi · · Score: 1

      As a Texan who was recently required to go to New Jersey on business, I can confirm that it is indeed brutally cold and utterly unfit for human habitation. The only liveable areas are the areas where no one currently lives.

    7. Re:Area conversion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now now it not nice to say bad things about New Jersey. Where else are they going to find the gangsters to film the next series of the Soprano's ? Be-careful they might put a contract on you!
      Personally I would be more concerned about the politicians in Washington DC than New Jersey people. The DC people think it is OK to torture others (as long as they don't do it to us).

    8. Re:Area conversion... by skeevy · · Score: 1

      Actually, given that they've located an area of possibly steaming ash and dust, maybe they just found New Jersey by accident.

      When they discover that the dust and ash is sitting on a layer of shopping malls, then we'll know for sure.

  13. It's more than a possibility. by VON-MAN · · Score: 2, Informative

    "Lakes Found Under Antarctic Ice Using Space Lasers"
    http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/19/1319228&from=rss
    "Exploration of lake hidden beneath Antarctica's ice sheet begins"
    http://www.physorg.com/news119682885.html

    1. Re:It's more than a possibility. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Lakes Found Under Antarctic Ice Using Space Lasers" http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/19/1319228&from=rss
      Wow. I knew we've sent monkeys and dogs into space, but...sharks in the space program? Isn't that dangerous? What if they bite the astronauts?
      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  14. Bond. by apodyopsis · · Score: 1

    must be me, but my first thought was "wow! what a splendid Bond villain hideout that would make!"

    ice on, lava below, inaccessible - threat of global destruction by melting the ice caps. now I just need several hundred minions wearing identical surplus overalls and large corridors I can drive my C5s, Mini Mokes and of course the G-Whiz down. Better order a brace of those new TATA mini cars to get with modern times and all the ladies have to wear mini skirts. Damn, better get back to work. :-)

    1. Re:Bond. by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 1

      Don't forget to order black face visors for all your minions too.

      --
      What if Tetris was invented by Nazis?
  15. i read somewhere by circletimessquare · · Score: 2, Interesting

    that scandinavia is still rebounding from the loss of its ice sheet in the last ice age

    i don't know the rate, but perhaps the rising seawater and the rising land should counteract each other in scandinavia

    i'm not really being that serious, just trying to bring some good cheer to you gloomy nords ;-)

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:i read somewhere by The+Wannabe+King · · Score: 1

      Eastern Norway and Northern Sweden, yes. But not Denmark. Denmark is actually sinking slightly.

    2. Re:i read somewhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only in northern scandinavia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_High_Coast).

      Southern sweden (and presumably denmark) is actually sinking.

    3. Re:i read somewhere by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 1

      Sorry for the Danes, but that rise is only prominentin northern Scandinavia, with the tilting axis somewhere at the height of the northern tip of Denmark.

      In fact, Denmark is sinking at the rate of up to about half a centimeter a year, while northern Scandinavia rises up to about 2 cm a year.

      As you can image the contour of shallow coastal plains changes dramatically within a man's lifetime.

  16. re: Blue Mars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, that was exactly my thought when I heard about this. It's even in the same frikkin' part of Antarctica!

    Ah, well. At least my house is 30m above sea level...

  17. Google Maps by hagnat · · Score: 1

    there was nothing strange in the coordinates provided in the article, but i found this dark spot nearby. Is this the 'evidence' ?

    --
    "life is a joke, and someone is laughing at me"
    1. Re:Google Maps by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 1

      No. That's the wreckage of Anubis' ship.

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    2. Re:Google Maps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually that's Morgon Freeman waving his hands yelling "Get me out of here!!!"

    3. Re:Google Maps by rukidding · · Score: 0

      try the street view

      --
      ...
    4. Re:Google Maps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most likely a dark spot is a steep slope (remember the sun angle is low) or a mountain sticking up through the ice. I wasn't sure which spot you looked at and images used in Google maps really suck. Someone needs to import the Actarctic MODIS Mosaic into Google Maps and Google Earth. It's a very pretty dataset. Or, here's a link to import Lansat images into Google Earth. Nothing much near your location. It was probably just a cloud shadow. There's are lots of clouds in the Google Maps images of Antarctica.

  18. then it's time for the danish to stop by circletimessquare · · Score: 2, Funny

    considering themselves scandinavian, and start considering themselves dutch

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:then it's time for the danish to stop by jackpot777 · · Score: 0, Troll

      dutch


      Really? So they shouldn't consider themselves Danes then? Because they usually do.

      And what about the people from Holland that actually call themselves Nederlanders (but the English-speaking world calls them Dutch)?

      And what about the German descendents in Pennsylvania that called themselves Deutsch, but the Americans call them Dutch because they never thought words could be different in different languages. To the point where Arnie, an Austrian, gets to play a character called Dutch in the movie Predator.

      In summary: Denmark is that bit that juts up to the north of Germany and has islands that stretch to Sweden. The Dutch live in the Netherlands, just north of Belgium and due east of East Anglia in England.
      --
      Shiny. Let's be bad guys...
    2. Re:then it's time for the danish to stop by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      I thought East Anglia was a car?

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    3. Re:then it's time for the danish to stop by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      ...due east of East Anglia in England.

      I thought East Anglia was a car?

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    4. Re:then it's time for the danish to stop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get a sense of humor, you silly cunt. He was clearly joking.

      Also, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about - Danish and Scandinavian aren't mutually exclusive, the first are a subset of the latter.

    5. Re:then it's time for the danish to stop by paeanblack · · Score: 1


      In summary: Denmark is that bit that juts up to the north of Germany and has islands that stretch to Sweden. The Dutch live in the Netherlands, just north of Belgium and due east of East Anglia in England.

      Whoosh.

      The Dutch have had much success with land reclamation and floodwater management. GP was suggesting that the Danes should attempt the same.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Works

  19. Europa? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I remember hearing stuff to suggest the ice on europa was miles thick, but if there's anything alive down there might it support the old Hypthesis?

  20. Woosh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sound of joke going over your head etc.

    1. Re:Woosh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The lack of "+5 funny" on your post tells me it either went over everyone's head, or maybe it's.... just not funny. I have a feeling your "joke" makes absolutely no sense at all.

  21. will accelerate melting at some point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is very bad news (tm).

    There is a quite thick layer of soot and ash trapped inside the glacier. At some point when the glacier melts enough, that whole layer becomes visible and thus the reflection of sunlight from the glacier surface diminishes. And the melting speed increases dramatically. To make things worse, the layer will stay there for some time as it is bit warmer than the ice and so it bores small holes where to stay put instead of getting flushed away.

    And don't get me started on that active volcano under glacier. How it will react when the weight of the glacier eases rapidly? Possible earthquakes and that means tsunami.

    Funny thing, a Finnish author named Risto Isomäki has written a hard scifi book about the subject only couple of years ago. It's called the sands of Sarasvati.

    1. Re:will accelerate melting at some point by Sqweegee · · Score: 1

      "And don't get me started on that active volcano under glacier. How it will react when the weight of the glacier eases rapidly? Possible earthquakes and that means tsunami." Earthquakes taking place thousands of miles from anyone except maybe an antarctic exploration camp aren't much of a threat, and tsunami are usually not a problem in mountain ranges on land.

    2. Re:will accelerate melting at some point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      There is a quite thick layer of soot and ash trapped inside the glacier. At some point when the glacier melts enough, that whole layer becomes visible and thus the reflection of sunlight from the glacier surface diminishes.

      That's not how things work in Antarctica. The snow falls on the top and the ice flows out to the sea and breaks off as ice bergs. Most of the melting ice is at the bottom, where it's warmest. There's only a handful of small places were the ice sublimates on the surface. Those areas are cool, because it's not just ash in the ice, there's also lots of meteors, which just sit on the blue ice waiting to be picked up.

    3. Re:will accelerate melting at some point by dargaud · · Score: 1

      At some point when the glacier melts enough, that whole layer becomes visible and thus the reflection of sunlight from the glacier surface diminishes. Antarctic glaciers melt from the bottom due to pressure and geothermal fluxes... like being heated from below by a volcano ! While snow accumulates on top.
      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
  22. Just the man I'm looking for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I always wondered how to say "sheep and dirt" in Klingon.

  23. Wales, as a common unit of size!!! by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 3, Interesting

    From http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A1066484

    Wales has, for decades, been used in the UK as a standard of measurement, not just of land mass but also of population, annual rain fall, tourist numbers and exports. Every large country's size was measured in 'Wales'es. Popular media, like radio and television have used the 'Wales', mainly in news reports.

            "The Americans have invaded Vietnam. This country in south east Asia is 14 times the size of Wales."

            "The Falklands have been invaded! These disputed islands, half the size of Wales, have been sought after by the Argentine government for decades."

    etc

    1. Re:Wales, as a common unit of size!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well it has to be useful for something, right?

    2. Re:Wales, as a common unit of size!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finally, as an American I get to laugh at someone else's units.

    3. Re:Wales, as a common unit of size!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is actually an on line calculator to convert obscure SI units into standard Wales multiples.

      http://www.simonkelk.co.uk/sizeofwales.html

      Very useful.

    4. Re:Wales, as a common unit of size!!! by Whiteox · · Score: 1

      Yep. Ok. I withdraw any queries about using the 'Size' of Wales' as an obscure unit of measurement.
      I didn't realise how commonplace it was.
      Reminds me of a line in Red Dwarf:
      "Transmitting on all frequencies and all known languages including Welsh"! (Rimmer)

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
  24. Wales? by Whiteox · · Score: 1

    You mean the country of Wales in the UK?
    That's a weird kind of comparison!
    But I suppose it's better than World Book Encyclopedia (1967) that kept comparing area to US States. And height comparisons to how many Empire State buildings etc etc.

    --
    Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    1. Re:Wales? by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

      That's a weird kind of comparison!

      Not as weird as in Texas, where people recently compared a UFO's size as bigger than a Walmart...

    2. Re:Wales? by ardle · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Here in my part of Papua New Guinea, a Wal-Mart is approximately 0.5M udus.
      Udu lives in the next village: he has a very flat head, therefore is an obvious unit of measurement.
      What's more, since we switched to the Udu from the Boko (Boko got arthritis, so was shrinking), our real-estate market has thrived :-)

    3. Re:Wales? by Whiteox · · Score: 1

      The English 'foot' or 12 inches was based on the length of a King's foot!
      Have you got a conversion table for how many Udu = how many Boko? There's no conversion that Google can do!.
      Anyway, I haven't heard of a Wal-Mart in New Guinea. There may be a K-Mart.

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
  25. Why South America? by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1

    My family very sensibly left Denmark sometime around the 1060s - probably having had to look at one hardwood chair design too many - and settled in the UK. My suggestion is that being a refugee is perfectly OK provided you have a few fast and well armed ships, and politically incorrect attitudes to the people you come to visit. Worked for us and, based on subsequent Danish and British history, can work for you too. Alternatively, imitate the Dutch and build concrete houseboats for the flat, low lying bits.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  26. What's with the Otter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would it kill them to show an image of the radar scan, or do they think we're too stupid to understand it? If they're so damn afraid of losing the credit they should just shut up until that's assured and then go public.

    Corporate-ized scientists, sheesh...

    1. Re:What's with the Otter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The corporate-ized *journal* is the problem. They limit authors to ridiculously small amounts of space. The scientists would love to show more of the data.

  27. On Wales: by ringmaster_j · · Score: 1

    A plume of ash covered in a thick layer of ice the size of Wales seems slightly more interesting than Wales itself.

  28. Uh oh by Minwee · · Score: 1

    Whatever you do, don't go to investigate the volcanoes. Some things are best left undisturbed.

  29. Re:Wales, schmails, isnit lookyou then by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 1

    When they uses Wales as an area comparison, is that allowing for all the mountains and valleys? Some say that if you could flatten them all out Wales would more than double in area. Others say that if you could completely flatten Wales, it would be a bloody good idea.

    --
    It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
  30. 21th by Dr.+Cody · · Score: 2, Funny

    Wuth wong with "21th," you inthenthitiff clod!?

  31. Whales by luna69 · · Score: 1

    Whales aren't all THAT big...

    --
    No gods, no demons, and no masters. Secular Humanism!
  32. Stop blubbering about whales! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Couldn't help it...

  33. Not the first at all! by Iowan41 · · Score: 1

    This has been known for a long time - that significant underice vulcanism in Antarctica was causing the ice streams. BTW, the much large East Antarctic ice cap is thickening and growing significantly.

  34. The correct form is "Welsh" by Iowan41 · · Score: 1

    And they are indeed mammals. What this has to do with Antarctica, I'm not sure. Oh, did you mean 'whales'? If so then your pronunciation and spelling, rather than your grammar, is off. ;-)

  35. Somebody call Gale Anne Hurd! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure she could make a summer blockbuster out of this!

          http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120591/
          http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118928/

  36. Re:And here Hmmm.. Talk about... by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    "Icy Hot"...

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  37. Red Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson by superascal · · Score: 1

    Same thing happened in Red Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson. Good book.

    --
    Dalbert
    1. Re:Red Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, that happened in Blue Mars (3rd book in the trilogy). Also a good book.

    2. Re:Red Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson by Jarnin · · Score: 1

      It also happened in his newest trilogy. Their solution was to pump sea water into dry lake beds and deserts to create artificial seas (or recreate seas that existed thousands of years ago). They also pumped water back onto the eastern ice shelf of Antarctica where it froze again.

  38. My mistake by dustmite · · Score: 1

    Oops, sorry, indeed, my mistake, I got confused, I meant timmarhy, not rucs_hack!